About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
made without a miranda warning or made while he's not really competent between times when he's sedated and not sedated. so they may be risking their death penalty, but they may be doing it for a good reason. they may need realtime intelligence, but i don't think that the public safety exception will stand up for allowing them not to have given the miranda warnings. >> fascinating. in fact, i have a lot of questions about that i'm going to get to. and actually i want to bring in another colleague as well right now. steve razor is a former military judge advocate general and knows a thing or two about this military issue. typically, steve, we hear about a 48-hour window and this is a very new area of justice. this has only been in sort of parlay for the last couple of years. we are far outside of that 48 hours by today. but can it be extended in the case of public safety? and exactly when can you establish that a public safety exemption has expired or is no longer of concern? how long can you keep him from getting miranda? >> well, there's no hard and fast rule on that. and that's exactl
authorities say he does not need to be read his miranda rights. >> right. first of all, let's just remember he may be in no physical condition to answer questions with or without miranda warnings. so his physical condition is the great unknown here which may render this whole dispute about miranda moot. let's assume that he is in a condition to answer questions. usually when someone is arrested, they get miranda warnings, and then they is a choice of whether to answer questions or not. here the government has said when there is an imminent danger to public safety, they can question without miranda warnings. that has traditionally or usually been interpreted to mean a future danger to public safety. the so-called ticking time bomb. tell us what's going to happen in the future, and we're not going to worry about miranda. what makes this an unusual invocation of the public safety exception is that the government is saying there is no more danger. there is no further conspirator out there. the government's position may be somewhat internally contradictory. that's something to keep an eye on as thi
of public safety exception before you give him his miranda rights, all that talk of naming him as an enemy combatant, all of that is moot right now. they've gone forward with the official proceedings. >> well, they may have used the public safety exception, and apparently they were using it to question him, and he responded in some way given his medical condition. but certainly now that he has a lawyer, that period, however long it was, is over. and you're right, the enemy combatant thing was a nonstarter from the never going to happen. this is a criminal case in federal court in massachusetts, and that's where it will stay until it's resolved one way or another. >> it's going to take a while. thanks very much, jeffrey. much more on what's going on in this boston investigation coming up here in "the situation room" 0. >>> also, another terror plot released today, new information. canadian authorities announcing the arrest of two men believed to be part of a terror plot to attack a passenger train that may have been heading towards the united states, the plot said to have an alleged connect
-called public safety exception to the miranda rule where for some period of time, it's not entirely clear how long, a suspect can be questioned without miranda warnings and that apparently is what's happening here. again, it's complicated somewhat by the fact that we didn't know exactly what tsarnaev's medical condition is and how many questions he can answer. apparently he's answering some questions in writing. so i don't really see lindsey graham's proposal as all that differentwhat's going on now. he seems to suggest a longer process of questioning him, but the obama administration has also committed to some period of questioning. now, this all assumes that he's willing to answer questions. can he always samp simply say it answering questions and there is no way either under enemy combatant rules or in the criminal justice system to force someone to answer questions who doesn't want to answer them. >> the argument i guess is under this limited questioning period before he is formally advised of his miranda rights, he has and right to an attorney, doesn't have to answer any questions. there
dzhokhar tsarnaev to investigators, we do not know if that was before or after he received his miranda warnings or before or after he obtained counsel. that's an excellent point. one of the things we do know that he is saying apparently is that it was his brother tamerlan who was the mastermind here. is that something that could be helpful to his defense if he was merely following his brother? >> well, it will be helpful to his defense in the sense of mitigating the penalty that he might end up suffering. from what i've read and what i've seen, he's clearly as culpable as his brother. the videos that they picked up, and the statements that he made to the driver of the suv, all would indicate that he was a willing participant in this crime, and also the fact that he fled from the scene would further indicate his willingness to participate in this crime. however, any influence that he might have suffered from his brother, his brother's influence on him, may again go to mitigate any penalty that might be imposed upon him. whether he ends up getting the death penalty or whether he ends up
. just to confirm, this -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has not yet been read his miranda rights, correct? >> i have to say i don't know. because there was an initial appearance today, that's why this complaint is out. the circuit executive, the administrator of this area, has put out a statement saying there was an initial appearance before a magistrate judge. that is as far as i understand it an arraignment. i have never heard of an arraignment without an attorney present. they didn't mention an attorney present. if an attorney is present, the attorney will simply say to the client, you -- don't answer questions. at that point, the attorney is the person the prosecutor is supposed to deal with. i have to say, there is information out there that we don't have. whether an attorney was present, whether this was an actual arraignment, i think we just need to hold off on that until we get more information. >> we're holding off. still so early this all happened. >> before we let deb feyerick go and chase down that lead she was referring to, deb, i was wondering, is there anything else that stands out in
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6